[VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation
Hermin Anggawijaya <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com> Tue, 15 May 2012 21:17 UTC
Return-Path: <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797CC21F863C for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GME5ubEKvApK for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B237321F8703 for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so161641pbc.31 for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aqIwnANOJ5a3uEOvgxU9zE7DSDmO8htBlP2twf0BEIE=; b=gq917P0l1trtvGfjrdw53WZgadmEE/r1b9RKFKjj6n6rNPDGGHGB/m1/gouU0/2W7h 3O4fvkp9el/gS6vnS/6c78UTC2inkysa5VEcqC2I1b/fb0VVSwbXJDpazukQAO/tBy2C KXO7HppKkQXNWKViVhDqEMzJCAAEuxkuLZEqtBFb4G8YtdsrDN1nhJ0fsB9SPrtg40H4 djQ47Rzgn3DWdF5bwsPYszoK/1wogRRcKfCMuri+ATDMxML118UGl01ivLXyyfDnHSAl sguYsoin6Q0A3omWNZSXywW/o81xLbg4kPxM96DX4cLPan8KnSUhW1711f4XIdBTK/ge 9UDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.129.131 with SMTP id nw3mr9418423pbb.150.1337116646216; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.58.21 with HTTP; Tue, 15 May 2012 14:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJgsEzXL5iRqwGuea0OEpa9cUYOQtA=rv957bGh+NzYb4c8bgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120515024148.38FF8108E26@melchior.iij.ad.jp> <CAJgsEzXL5iRqwGuea0OEpa9cUYOQtA=rv957bGh+NzYb4c8bgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:17:25 +1200
Message-ID: <CAJgsEzWTSsc2=O3=93mAuhn+ETcHn8LgHfikbrZOLSAq3S7WGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hermin Anggawijaya <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com>
To: vrrp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:17:27 -0000
Hello I am thinking of submitting an errata for RFC 5798 Sec. 5.2.8 to make it more precise in describing the checksum calculation for each address family. But reading a few responses here, I gathered that there is no general agreement as to the original intention of the text, I believe that for IPv4, the checksum is calculated without pseudo-header so that it is backward compatible with RFC 3768. Any other opinions - particularly from original authors ? Kind Regards Hermin Anggawijaya On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM, <kura@iij.ad.jp> wrote: > Hello list, > > Has there been any progress with regard to this topic? > I know that in an implementation of VRRPv3 for IPv4 the checksum > is calculated without pseudo-header currently, but I believe that > pseudo-header should be involved in the calculation as same as > IPv6 case. > > Regards, > -- > Tomohiko Kurahashi <kura@iij.ad.jp> > > > From: sahara@surt.net > Date: Mon Apr 02 2012 20:41:51 JST >> >> Forwarded. >> Any other VRRPv3/IPv4 implementation? >> >> >> Thanks, >> Tomoyuki >> >> >> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:26:15 +0200 >> Subject: Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calculation >> From: Hermin Anggawijaya <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com> >> To: Tomoyuki Sahara <sahara@surt.net> >> >> Sahara-san >> >> Thanks for your input. >> >> Anyone else with either/other interpretation of the clause ? >> >> >> Thanks >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Tomoyuki Sahara <sahara@surt.net> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Hermin Anggawijaya >> > <hermin.anggawijaya@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Would someone be able to help clarifying RFC5798 Sec. 5.2.8 on >> >> checksum for me please... >> >> >> >> It says that >> >> >> >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement >> >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field and a >> >> "pseudo-header" as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]. The next >> >> header field in the "pseudo-header" should be set to 112 (decimal) >> >> for VRRP. For computing the checksum, the checksum field is set to >> >> zero. See RFC1071 for more detail [RFC1071]." >> >> >> >> My interpretation of the above clause is, for IPv4 VRRP the checksum would be >> >> defined as: >> >> >> >> "The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement >> >> sum of the entire VRRP message starting with the version field" >> >> >> >> as per RFC 3768, instead of involving "pseudo header" (as defined in >> >> Section 8.1 of [RFC2460]). >> > >> > My understanding is only reference text ("as defined in Section 8.1 of >> > [RFC2460]") is irrelevant for IPv4. Our implementation calculates checksum >> > including pseudo header as for TCP/UDP/DCCP. >> > >> >> If my interpretation is correct, would it be useful to change the text to >> >> reflect specific checksum detail for IPv4 ? >> > >> > My interpretation is different from yours but clarification should be >> > very useful. >> > It's vital for interoperable implementations of VRRPv3/IPv4. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Tomoyuki > _______________________________________________ > vrrp mailing list > vrrp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
- [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum calcul… Hermin Anggawijaya
- Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum ca… Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum ca… Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 - clarification on checksum ca… kura
- [VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on checksum c… Hermin Anggawijaya
- Re: [VRRP] Fwd: RFC5798 - clarification on checks… Nair, Anoop Govindan